(a) The sexuality of a crime of breach of trust where an obligor in possession of a movable property whose security for transfer has been established reduces the value of security (affirmative);

B. Whether a crime of breach of trust is committed where a debtor disposes of an automobile offered as security for transfer (affirmative)

(c) Where the debtor disposed of an automobile offered as security for transfer, but the mortgagee transferred the registration title, the case denying the establishment of the crime of breach of trust;

A. In a case where the so-called strong meaning of transfer for security on a movable property owned by an obligor to secure a monetary claim is established and the obligor takes possession of such movable property, the ownership of the movable property is merely a transfer to a creditor under a trust, and thus, the obligor has the inherent ownership between the obligee and the obligor, but is in the position of a person who administers the business of the mortgagee in accordance with the agreement on collateral security by holding the mortgagee an obligation to keep the movable property in the internal relationship between the obligee and the obligor. Therefore, if the obligor unfairly reduced the value of the security by disposing of the movable property transferred for security, etc

B. In a case where a movable transferred for security is an automobile, the acquisition and loss of the ownership shall take effect only when the ownership takes effect, but it affects the value of the security by the method of use, so even in a case where an obligor, who establishes and occupies an automobile as a security for transfer, unfairly reduces the value of the security by disposing of it, etc., the liability for

C. During the possession of a motor vehicle by transferring its registered title to a mortgagee as a collateral, if the debtor transferred the registered title to the mortgagee's own, etc. after the sale of the motor vehicle, it cannot be said that the debtor reduces the value of the security unfairly by turning on the debtor's act.

Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do1829 delivered on March 8, 1983

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 86No1430 delivered on December 29, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Grounds for appeal against the rules of evidence

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that the defendants purchased the automobile of this case in installment form and paid the price thereof, and since the name of registration was limited to the name of the non-indicted A, the victim, in order to secure the claim for reimbursement at the time of the judgment below, the owner of the automobile of this case cannot be deemed to be the above victim. Since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the facts charged for the embezzlement of this case, which presumed that the automobile of this case was owned by the above number of automobiles of this case, return to the time when there is no proof of crime. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the rules

2. Meritorious of legal principles

In a case where the so-called weak meaning of transfer for security on movable property owned by the debtor for the purpose of securing monetary claims is established, the ownership of movable property is merely transferred to the creditor in trust, and thus, it is prohibited from an act of disposing of or destroying it or reducing the value of the security by holding the creditor as an obligee duty to keep it in an internal relationship between the creditor and the debtor. Therefore, in a case where the above debtor, as an obligor, unfairly reduces the value of the security by disposing of the movable property transferred for security to the creditor, the crime of breach of trust is established under the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1829, Mar. 8, 1983). However, since the ownership of movable property affects the value of the automobile under the method of use, it cannot be viewed that the above act of sale by the debtor constitutes an unlawful act of sale of the security under the name of the non-indicted party, such as the establishment of the security right, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the above act of sale by the court below after the conclusion of the judgment below is justified.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)